Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works October 14 20141P1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL 20 Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee 30 40 October 14, 2014 5P1 60 CALL TO ORDER 7P] 8M Committee Chair Barbara Brenner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the 91a Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. 10PI 11M ROLL CALL 12M 13P] (1:34:02 PM) 14P] 150 Present: Barbara Brenner, Ken Mann and Pete Kremen. 16M Absent: None. 17M Also Present: Barry Buchanan and Carl Weimer. 180 19P] 20M COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 21P] 221N 1. DISCUSSION REGARDING LAKEWAY DRIVE CROSSWALK REQUEST (AB2014- 230 203) 24P] 251N Brenner stated this item was withdrawn from the agenda and will be rescheduled on 260 October 28. 27P1 28M 2. DISCUSSION ON DECISION REGARDING BERTRAND CREEK ESTATES 290 OFFSITE MITIGATION (AB2014 -328) 30P] 31M Joe Rutan, Public Works Director, submitted handouts (on file), gave a staff report, 320 and described the background and the original condition for widening the shoulder. In the 33M future, the decision will be made by the County Engineer, not staff. He learned a lot from 34M this experience, including making sure that citizen comments are addressed. Now, the 350 long -plat has been approved. Unfortunately, it's too late to require this of the developer. If 36M the County wants to widen the shoulder, it would cost approximately $45,000. There is a 37M good existing clear zone now. There is opportunity to do maintenance on the existing 380 shoulder that is grown over. The original requirement was for a six -foot shoulder, of which 39M two feet would be chip sealed. They can reestablish four feet of the shoulder, and chip -seal 401a two feet of it. It would be two feet narrower on one side. 410 42M Brenner asked how much it would cost to put gravel on both sides. Rutan stated 43M they would do that under the existing maintenance budget. There was no comment in the 440 Hearing Examiner record on the shoulders. There were comments on the long plat itself. 45M He doesn't know if this proposal would meet the needs of the neighborhood. 46P] 470 Mann asked if the citizens have a problem with the process or with the shoulders. 481M Rutan stated the concern was with agricultural equipment. Folks are concerned about the 49M mixed use on the road. 500 511M Brenner stated she thought the Hearing Examiner hearing addressed an issue about 521E road width. Rutan stated the record he reviewed did not. They need to work with the 530 Council about offsite mitigation for road widening. Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/14/2014, Page 1 P1 1(J 20 Jack Louws, County Executive, stated they can come close to building the road 30 conditions that the citizens expected as a result of the Hearing Examiner's decision, if they 41M clean up the shoulders and chip seal. It's a low cost compromise that meets expectations of 5M the citizens. He recommends they move forward with taking care of that. If the Council 60 wants exactly the conditions that the Hearing Examiner created, they will have to do 7M something different. 8(] 91] Brenner asked if the low -cost proposal allows agricultural equipment. Rutan stated it 101M will. 11(] 121] Brenner asked how they codify prevention of such a problem from happening again. 13E Louws stated the Council would need to work with the Hearing Examiner to not allow staff 14M flexibility. 15(] 16M Brenner stated there could be a difference of opinion about what is and what isn't 170 significant. Codify that the review is done by an engineer. Rutan stated it is detailed in the 18M code. Staff should write an internal policy. 19F?1 200 Mann asked if there has been feedback about the proposal from concerned 21M neighbors. Rutan stated they have not received feedback. 221] 230 Mann stated that if this is the County's fault, they must find out from the community 24M how this solution will meet their need. 25(] 260 Rutan described why the Hearing Examiner applied the condition in the first place. 27(J 281] Louws stated the staff will engage with Mr. Steensma and the neighbors before 290 moving forward with any proposal. 30F?] 310 Mann stated he would like clarity on whether the neighbors are concerned with the 32M process or the road shoulders. 33(J 34M Brenner stated Mr. Steensma is concerned with both. 35F?1 36M Weimer stated he agrees with contacting Mr. Steensma. He asked how County 370 departments and staff track all these Hearing Examiner conditions. Departments should 38M have that discussion, or discuss if the conditional use permit process isn't adequate. 391] 400 Rutan stated staff has learned from this, is very sorry, and will make changes. They 41M will engage with the citizens to develop a solution. 421?1 430 3. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2015 ANNUAL 44M CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2014 -329) (1 :58:31 PM) 451] 460 Joe Rutan, Public Works Department, gave a staff report. He referenced Council 47M packet pages 308 through 310. The County is allowed to use its own forces to do some 481] work. They are asking for County forces in the amount of about $760,000, the same as last 490 year, and they don't foresee using all that is requested. In 2014, they will use less than 50M $400,000 in County forces. 51(] 52M Brenner asked about the Slater Road projects they recently changed in the six -year 53M transportation improvement program (TIP). She asked why they aren't including grant fund Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/14/2014, Page 2 (] 1M proposals. Rutan stated they haven't yet applied for grant funds for the Slater Road 20 projects. The projects that indicate the County is looking for grants are only the projects 30 that seek Bridge Repair and Replacement (BRAG) funds. 4P1 5M Brenner stated the summary sheets should indicate they are seeking grant funds. 60 Rutan stated they can add that note. He described the planned Slater Road work. 7 P 8M Brenner stated the Slater Road narrative should include the word roundabout.' 9r?] 101M Rutan submitted substitute summary narrative sheets for project 31 on Council 11M packet page 333 and project 35 on Council packet page 337 (on file). He described the 12ra projects. Approving the substitute narratives will indicate legislative approval of necessary 13M road and bridge closures. They will prepare the construction plans and bids accordingly. 140 15M Brenner referenced the Northwest Road and Slater Road project and asked if the cost 16M estimates will be as if there is a roundabout for four -way traffic. Rutan stated they will. 170 They will discuss it in the context of sequencing those projects. 18P] 19M 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 200 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY FACILITIES (2015 -2020) AND AMENDING LEVEL OF 21M SERVICE STANDARDS (AB2014 -330) (2:09 :53 PM) 22P1 230 Matt Aamot, Planning and Development Services Department, gave a staff report. 24M The two components of the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan are the level 25rN of service (LOS) standards for park and recreation facilities and updating the six -year 260 capital improvement program (CIP) for County facilities. The Parks and Recreation 27M Commission recommends deleting the LOS for activity centers because the capacity to serve 280 the public is not based on the number of County buildings. 290 30M Brenner asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission gets a recommendation from 31M the Parks Department when making its recommendation to the Council. 32P] 33P] Mike McFarlane, Parks and Recreation Department Director, stated there was a 340 discussion with the Parks and Recreation Commission during an open meeting. 35r?] 36M Brenner asked if the Council voted to reduce level of services for activity centers. 370 She asked where that suggestion came from. McFarlane stated the administration looked at 38M that possibility. The actual level of service is based on capacity, not number of buildings, 391N but the LOS element addressed the number of buildings. If an activity center reaches 400 capacity, they would likely consider expanding, not building another building. 41F?] 42M Aamot continued his staff report on LOS for trails. For future planning purposes, 430 they will maintain the current number of trails per capita, which is now .32 miles per 1,000 44M county residents. The LOS measure for parks is changed from acres per 1,000 to number of 452 developed regional parks per 1,000, and they will maintain the current LOS. 460 47F?] He continued his presentation on the second component, which is the six -year capital 482 improvement program. He submitted two revisions (on file). One change is to include all 490 trails instead of just shared use trails that will be built in the six -year period. 50M 511a Brenner asked why someone can't walk on an equestrian trail. McFarlane described 52M the differences between single -use and shared -use trails. 53M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/14/2014, Page 3 P1 1E Brenner asked if the money for this will come from the general fund. Aamot stated 20 funding sources are indicated throughout the document and include several different funds 30 and State, federal, and local funds. 4F?1 5F?1 Mann stated he needs to know how the level of service for parks is established and 60 justified. He doesn't know if the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan will be incorporated 7M into the Comprehensive Plan by reference. He doesn't understand how they derived any of 8M the LOS numbers. The logic for removing the activity center LOS is opposite from the logic 91a used to justify the shift to park capacity. Aamot stated they won't reference the Parks and 101M Recreation Open Space Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. They are trying to establish a level 11M of service for basic park and trail facilities. As the community grows, it will be the base 121a level of LOS. They may want other types of park services, such as equestrian trails, but 13E those services aren't necessary to achieve growth in the community. 140 15M Mann stated they shouldn't lower the LOS just to meet the existing capacity. Aamot 16M stated budgeting decisions are supposed to be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, 170 according to the Growth Management Act (GMA). If something is in the Comprehensive 18M Plan, they should fund it. They need to either fund or modify the LOS. 19F?1 200 Mann asked how they determined the LOS. Aamot stated the National Parks and 21M Recreation Association has made recommendations for LOS since the 1980's. The current 22M recommendations allow communities to determine the unique LOS that a community needs 230 and can afford. That's what the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan did. However, what 24M people want is sometimes difficult to fund. That's the reason for setting a base level of 250 service and a desired level. It allows the County some flexibility. 260 27F?1 Mann stated that at a certain point, it's okay to deny development if the parks LOS 28E isn't met. 290 30M Brenner stated some community services are essential, such as the jail and criminal 310 justice. Everyone wants parks, but they have to make sure essential services get the 32M funding they need. 33F?1 340 Aamot stated that a parks wish list is included in the plan so those projects can be 35M eligible for grants. 361?1 370 Kremen stated that parks and trails levels of service should be flexible and adjusted 38M as needed. 391] 400 Brenner stated don't eliminate the LOS for activity and senior centers. Senior 41M centers should be managed by the Health Department, not the Parks Department. Also, all 42M open space areas should be included in the park inventory, including city parks. List every 430 place that people can go. 44(] 451] Mann stated changing the definition of an LOS automatically changes the amount of 460 parks. 47(] 481] Greg Brown stated getting rid of the senior center LOS gives the Parks Department 490 more opportunity to take care of the seniors. The discussion about trails came down to 50M maintaining the existing trails for the existing population. The calculation includes only the 51M parks in Whatcom County, not municipal parks, but it includes the entire population of the 52M county, including city residents. The current parks acreage is more than they need for LOS. 53M Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/14/2014, Page 4 1m 20 3P] 4M 5M 60 71M 8r?] 91a 101M 11m 121a 131M 140 15M 16M 170 18P] 19M 200 21M 22M 230 24P] 25M 260 27M 28P] 290 30M 310 32M 33P] 34F?1 350 36P] 3717 380 39M 4017 410 42M 4317 441?1 45M 46M 470 48P] 49P] 500 51P] 52M Mann asked for an explanation of why the LOS removal for senior centers is a good thing. McFarlane stated the per capita number now is based on the number of buildings. A better measure is number of square feet per capita, which is about capacity. Brenner stated change the definition of LOS. Don't eliminate the LOS. Mann asked why they want the LOS for activity centers to be square feet per capita, but they don't want acres per capita for parks. McFarlane stated that works for smaller communities. Many regional parks are larger parks that serve everyone and include a lot of conservancy areas. They aren't going to build a ball field at the Stimson Nature Reserve, for example. Parks are categorized by the different types and functions of parks. Aamot stated the Planning Commission wants to revisit the LOS as part of the 2016 update. He's fine with reinstating the LOS for activity centers. They will revisit it at a future date. Brenner moved to keep language about activity centers in the ordinance. Kremen stated that if they want to keep the level as it is, include language about not increasing the LOS. As it is now, the language indicates they aren't considering any LOS for senior activity centers. If that's the case, he has concerns. Aamot stated hold in committee. Don't introduce the ordinance tonight. The Committee concurred. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Jill Nixon, Minutes TranscriptionM P1 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair Public Works, Health, and Safety Committee, 10/14/2014, Page 5